Of course it can sound better than CD. Even if the master is a 16/44.1 recording it is upsampled when recorded onto SACD

No not really, a new remaster might sound better than the original, but it will never have anything to do with it being HD. With albums like BIA which were tracked at 16/44, no upsampling of the master or increasing its bitdepth will genuinely put back what isn't there. It can't. It's not like going back to an analogue recording and re-digitising it with better ADC converters at a higher resolution. The ultimate resolution of digital recordings can never be better than that of the original.

To give you an extreme example, if you rip a 44.1k CD, downsample it to 8K, then upsample it again to 44.1k, you won't get back what you lost and it won't sound the same as the original.

Given his kit list, and the 'justification' he's provided, I don't think bigcolz has the excuse of poverty. So I don't see your point? People should never reform if they did something in their past? People shouldn't point out wrongdoing? We all love music and what bigcolz does is not only illegal but damages our hobby in the long term. We can't stop people stealing music but surely we should abstain from it ourselves and point out that it's wrong when others do it?

Well, I can't condone it because it is illegal and it is affecting the music business but it's also something that is widespread, virtually impossible to police and maybe needs looking at. There's certainly something wrong with a system where it costs more to download a compressed version of an album than it does to buy the CD. Where does the saving from not having physical media to manufacture and transport go to? I believe the consumer is getting ripped off just as much as the record companies are.

(A quick look on Amazon showed Communique as £5 with free delivery for the CD vs £5.49 for the mp3 download)

My point was that the (over)reaction of the major smacked to me of sanctimony...

My point was that the (over)reaction of the major smacked to me of sanctimony...

It wasn't over-reaction. Only an absolute EDITED comes on a public forum like WHF and admits to illegal torrenting so matter-of-factly like it isn't an issue. Yet the person - me - who actually had the EDITED to speak up, is labelled as some sanctimonius crank :wall: . How ironic. No wonder the world's EDITED. :roll:

If the majority view is that I'm out of touch with reality then I'll happily leave.

Given his kit list, and the 'justification' he's provided, I don't think bigcolz has the excuse of poverty. So I don't see your point? People should never reform if they did something in their past? People shouldn't point out wrongdoing? We all love music and what bigcolz does is not only illegal but damages our hobby in the long term. We can't stop people stealing music but surely we should abstain from it ourselves and point out that it's wrong when others do it?

Well, I can't condone it because it is illegal and it is affecting the music business but it's also something that is widespread, virtually impossible to police and maybe needs looking at. There's certainly something wrong with a system where it costs more to download a compressed version of an album than it does to buy the CD. Where does the saving from not having physical media to manufacture and transport go to? I believe the consumer is getting ripped off just as much as the record companies are.

(A quick look on Amazon showed Communique as £5 with free delivery for the CD vs £5.49 for the mp3 download)

My point was that the (over)reaction of the major smacked to me of sanctimony...

So because lots of people have done it in the past, lots of people do it now and it's difficult to police it should be ignored? Just think about your argument in the context of any other crime (people have been getting raped forever and it's really hard to convict people, so don't worry about it / jimmy drove whilst drunk when he was 17 so it doesn't matter if he keeps doing it), and you'll realise how stupid it is. +1 to the major for this being described as an overreaction. If one person reading this thread realises what a cock they're being then it was worth it.

The prof has set out previously some good reasons why downloads cost so much. Just think of the infrastructure, staff, security, electricity etc used to build and maintain the servers etc. Btw, the price will come down if there were more legitimate purchases.

Of course it can sound better than CD. Even if the master is a 16/44.1 recording it is upsampled when recorded onto SACD

No not really, a new remaster might sound better than the original, but it will never have anything to do with it being HD. With albums like BIA which were tracked at 16/44, no upsampling of the master or increasing its bitdepth will genuinely put back what isn't there. It can't. It's not like going back to an analogue recording and re-digitising it with better ADC converters at a higher resolution. The ultimate resolution of digital recordings can never be better than that of the original.

To give you an extreme example, if you rip a 44.1k CD, downsample it to 8K, then upsample it again to 44.1k, you won't get back what you lost and it won't sound the same as the original.

Then what precisely is the point of an upsampling DAC when using a CD transport?

Motto: Never pay full price for anything, there is always room to haggle!

In the days of vinyl it used to be common practise for us poor students to lend each other our albums and copy them onto cassettes. I suppose that was theft as well but nobody seemed too concerned about it; there was no way we could afford to buy everything. One chap I knew had over a thousand cassettes each with 2 albums on.

Has the perception of this practise somehow changed with the advent of torrents and pristine digital copies instead of cheap hissy cassettes?

How many here can honestly put their hands up and say that they have never done anything like this with audio or video?

If one adopts this whiter than white approach, can that person claim that for everything in life? Never exceeded the speed limit, never parked where you shouldn't, never went to a pub before you were 18, never smoked a joint??

So because lots of people have done it in the past, lots of people do it now and it's difficult to police it should be ignored? Just think about your argument in the context of any other crime (people have been getting raped forever and it's really hard to convict people, so don't worry about it / jimmy drove whilst drunk when he was 17 so it doesn't matter if he keeps doing it), and you'll realise how stupid it is. +1 to the major for this being described as an overreaction. If one person reading this thread realises what a cock they're being then it was worth it.

The prof has set out previously some good reasons why downloads cost so much. Just think of the infrastructure, staff, security, electricity etc used to build and maintain the servers etc. Btw, the price will come down if there were more legitimate purchases.

To use your own words, I realise how stupid it is to compare rape and drunk driving to downloading music without paying for it. There are obviously different degrees of crime and I was careful to compare this particular offence with other illegal acts that would perhaps incur a fine as opposed to 10 years in prison.

As to the cost of downloads, I can see that there is a cost involved to the supplier but I cannot accept that it is greater than the cost of manufacturing, transporting, distributing, packaging and posting a physical item such as a CD. As I said before, if the majority of the public have the perception, whether rightly or wrongly, that they are getting ripped off, they will not accept it.

Both you and MajorFubar feel strongly about this, possibly because of your love for music or perhaps because you really are both "whiter than white" however if either of you have ever driven at 80mph on a motorway or indulged in a joint at a party then you have also broken "a law" and if that's the case, that's where the hypocrisy lies. If you are going to be so vehement about one law then you should be as vehement about all laws. Perhaps you are - I don't know.

I recently brought the sacd version of brothers in arms, i have to say it sounds excellent and over the hdcd version sultans of swing album sounds more open and detailed.

in regards to previous comments about copying/downloading illegally, i think it is harmful to the industry however through the use of said methods and sharing also promotes free advertising for the artist, there is always you tube which also allows you to stream at no additional cost apart from the cost you pay to your ISP, is this ilegal too?

why are cd's (high quality) often less to buy then mp3's (lower quality) beats me

further more, a cd/,mps is sold on release for say £8 then wait a few months and then you can buy for generally half price, is it any wonder why there are folk out there who choose to obtain media through other means.

IMO you should be able to buy a cd for £5 at realease then stay that price and an mp3 for £4 respectively

Actually I'm far more into morality than law, which can change substantially geographically and culturally etc. So depending on the circumstances speeding and use of recreational drugs doesn't bother me. Even theft can occasionally be justified. But not here, bigcolz's attempts at self-justification (and yours, if you partake in illegal downloading) are pathetic and intellectually disingenuous. Obviously the analogies I gave are more serious, that was the whole point. Theft of music (intellectual property) is still immoral (and illegal) albeit less serious.

You might notice we're on a hifi forum, so it seems odd that you appear so outraged by this reaction. You might not get the same vehement reaction down the pub, but this is an issue (most decent) people take to heart if they love music. To suggest that if someone might have driven at 80mph that on a hifi forum they should not condemn illegal downloading seems pretty warped to me.

Then what precisely is the point of an upsampling DAC when using a CD transport?

Hi Alears, the theory as I understand it, a proposed benefit of oversampling/upsampling is that digital artifiacts from the D->A process are pushed up way beyond the threshold of our hearing, meaning that the low-pass filters in the analogue part of the the DAC don't have to be as severe.

I'm not whiter than white, and I never said I was. But to continue with the motoring analogy used earlier, neither have I joined a road-safety forum and nonchalantly said how I regularly blast through built-up areas at twice the speed-limit. I was more astonished not by the fact that he downloads music illegally, but that he chose to admit it so casually on a public HiFi forum.

Then what precisely is the point of an upsampling DAC when using a CD transport?

Hi Alears, the theory as I understand it, a proposed benefit of oversampling/upsampling is that digital artifiacts from the D->A process are pushed up way beyond the threshold of our hearing, meaning that the low-pass filters in the analogue part of the the DAC don't have to be as severe.

You lost me there. 'Digital artifacts from the D>A process'?

Lets take this Dire Straits thing originally recorded as all digital master (DDD) at 16/44.1kHz.